Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID# 11159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION IN RE: INTERIOR MOLDED DOORS Lead Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID# 11160 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i I. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request is Fair and Reasonable. ................................... 3 1. The Factors for Assessing Percentage-of-Fund Requests Support Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. .............................................................................................. 5 a. IPP Class Counsel Obtained an Excellent Result for the Class. .......................... 6 b. The Lack of Objections by Settlement Class Members Supports Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. .............................................................................. 7 c. IPP Class Counsel’s Skill and Efficiency Support Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. ......................................................................................................... 7 d. The Duration and Complexity of the Litigation Supports the Fee Request......... 9 e. IPP Class Counsel Faced a Significant Risk of Nonpayment. ........................... 10 f. IPP Class Counsel Necessarily Devoted Over 27,800 Hours to Prosecuting this Action................................................................................................................. 12 g. Public Policy Supports the Fee Request. ........................................................... 12 h. Courts Routinely Grant Fee Awards of 30% or More of the Settlement Fund in Cases Involving Comparable Complexity and Risk. ......................................... 13 2. A Cross-Check of IPP Class Counsel’s Lodestar Confirms the Reasonableness of the Fee Request. ....................................................................................................... 15 B. IPP Class Counsel’s Litigation Costs are Reasonable and Compensable. ..................... 18 C. The Requested Service Awards are Reasonable and Appropriate. ................................ 19 II. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 21 i Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID# 11161 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Am. Soc’y of Mech. Eng’rs v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556 (1982) .................................................................................................................13 In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1426, 2008 WL 63269 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 3, 2008) .......................................................11 Berry v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Grp., No. 3:11–CV–754, 2014 WL 4403524 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2014) ............................................20 In re Blech Sec. Litig., No. 94 Civ. 7696, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23170 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2002) .........................18 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ...................................................................................................................3 Brown v. Transurban USA, Inc., 318 F.R.D. 560 (E.D. Va. 2016) ...................................................................................... passim Burke v. Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP, No. 3:14CV201 (DJN), 2016 WL 2894914 (E.D. Va. May 17, 2016) ....................................20 Carroll v. Stettler, No. 10-2262, 2011 WL 5008361 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2011) .....................................................18 Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., No. 11-cv-7178, 2017 WL 4776626 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2017) .........................................6, 10, 17 In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, 2013 WL 5429718 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2013) ................................................9 In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2476, 2016 WL 2731524 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2016) .............................................13 Deem v. Ames True Temper, Inc., No. 6:10-CV-01339, 2013 WL 2285972 (S.D.W. Va. May 23, 2013)..........................6, 14, 20 Faile v. Lancaster Cty., No. 10-cv-2809, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189610 (D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2012) ................................19 In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 951 F. Supp. 2d 739 (E.D. Pa. 2013) .......................................................................................10 i Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 4 of 28 PageID# 11162 Galloway v. Williams, No. 3:19-cv-0470, 2020 WL 7482191 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2020) ............................................11 In re Genworth Fin. Secs. Litig., 210 F. Supp. 3d 837 (E.D. Va. 2016) .............................................................................. passim Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-003, 2017 WL 4484258 (E.D. Va. May 11, 2017) .............................................5, 12 In re Iowa Ready-Mix Concrete Antitrust Litig., No. 10-cv-4038, 2011 WL 5547159 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 9, 2011) ..............................................14 Kirven v. Cent. States Health & Life Co., No. 11-cv-2149, 2015 WL 1314086 (D.S.C. Mar. 23, 2015) ..................................8, 14, 15, 20 In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 292 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2003) .........................................................................................9 In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., No. CIV.A. 98-5055, 2004 WL 1221350 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004) ......................................8, 13 Manuel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-cv-238, 2016 WL 1070819 (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2016) ...................................................4 Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 381 U.S. 311 (1965) .................................................................................................................13 Muhammad v. Nat’l City Mortg., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-0423, 2008 WL 5377783 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 19, 2008) .......................................19 Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., No. CV 12-3824, 2014 WL 12778314 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2014) ...........................................15 In re Neustar, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:14CV885, 2015 WL 8484438 (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2015) .................................................17 Phillips v. Triad Guar. Inc., No. 1:09-cv-0071, 2016 WL 2636289 (M.D.N.C. May 9, 2016) ............................................11 In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litig., No. 3:03-cv-1516, ECF No. 45 (W.D.N.C. June 24, 2008) ...............................................14, 20 In re Prandin Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1396473 (E.D. Mich. 2015) .................................................................................9, 14 In re Remeron Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. CIV.03-0085 FSH, 2005 WL 3008808 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2005) .........................................14 ii Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 5 of 28 PageID# 11163 Seaman v. Duke Univ., No. 1:15-CV-462, 2019 WL 4674758 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2019) ................................. passim Sims v. BB&T Corp., No. 1:15-cv-0732, 2019 WL 1993519 (M.D.N.C. May 6, 2019) ......................................17, 20 Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md. 2013) ...............................................................................5, 18, 19 In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., No. 2:07-CV 208, 2013 WL 2155387 (E.D. Tenn. May 17, 2013) .........................................13 In re Star Scientific, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 3:13-cv-0183, 2015 WL 13821326 (E.D. Va. June 26, 2015) ..........................................14 Strang v. JHM Mortg. Sec. Ltd. P’ship., 890 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Va. 1995) .............................................................................................4 Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 08-cv-271, 2012 WL 13008138 (D.S.C. July 31, 2012) .................................................5, 9 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-md-1827, 2013 WL 1365900 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013) ................................................9 Thomas v. FTS USA, LLC, No. 13-cv-825, 2017 WL 1148283 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2017) ......................................4, 5, 14, 15 In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig., No. 10-cv-0318, 2013 WL 6577029 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2013) ...........................................14, 20 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................13 Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., No. 14-cv-8020, 2016 WL 6661336 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2016) ..............................................7, 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) ....................................................................................................................1, 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)....................................................................................................................1 Other Authorities Natalie Rodriguez, Meet